 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / October 2004Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument
Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. Now, if one is discussing images made on physical media (film), there *is* the distinct possibility that the image will be rendered unusable through time because of physical degradation of the image. (Witness movies on nitrate stock and color negatives or slides with unstable dyes.) And in the case of digital media, there is always the possibility that the image will become unreadable because of *physical* degradation of the media (tape, magnetic disc, optical disc, etc.) However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats (meaning both the equuipment and the software to decipher the data and deliver it in a usable form): specifically, 9-track tape (remember the old movies with the computers with the spinning tape drives?) and floppy disks, including the old 8" monsters. I'm confident that even data on paper tape could be read; someone, somewhere, has a paper-tape reader connected to his S-100 system (running CP/M), or some other moldy oldie. And if not, a reader could pretty easily be cobbled together. The point is that humanity doesn't collectively forget its own obsolete recording formats, just because something new comes along. Sure, the old formats fall into disuse and become difficult to use, but not impossible. Why, in this very house, I can right now play 78 rpm records if I like, or 45s even. I can also read all of my old 5-1/4" floppies on my computer. I'd like someone to try to name a data storage format (either physical medium or data format) that they think cannot be read today.  SignatureEverybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky > Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic > aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > (either physical medium or data format) that they think > cannot be read today. The oldest media you are dealing with is probably the 9 track data recordings. How old are they? probably not more than about forty years, if that. In order to read them you need to have the transport, heads that match the format, and know what the format is. This is quite different from "reading" still photographs, which requires no equipment other than the eye, even for negatives. Motion pictures are more difficult if one requires reproducing the motion but the subject matter is also visiblel to the eye with no help (other than perhaps a magnifyer). Also viewer and projector technology has not changed fundamentally in over a century and is still used. More difficult will be the recovery of data from formats as common as floppy discs. It will probably be possible but will require the construction of suitable reproducers. While a floppy drive is very cheap now it won't be when they are no longer made and must be constructed as a single specialty item. The fact is that recovery of archived material on photographic film requires little specialized equipment while digital data will always require a lot of specialized equipment. It is difficult to predict the future of technology. Usually, predictions are based on extrapolating from current technology but there is no way to predict a "break through" based on new scientific discovery. Science and technology are different in a very fundamental way: science is the discovery of natural laws or principles; technology is the application of known laws or principles. It is also possible that computer technology will eventually reach some sort of equilibrium. It is still a new art (IMHO) which means it is changeing rapidly, but that rate of change may itself change in the future. Here again is an unpredictible factor because we don't know what discoveries may be made which may accelerate change. Certainly digital archiving will become more reliable in the future because it has to in order to be useful. Other forms of electronic storage than digital have also suffered from rapid change in technology. When I started in the TV business 2 inch segmented scan video tape recorders were common. Now they are found only in specialty dub houses for the purpose of recovering material recorded on that format. The example of a 78 disc is trivial. Cylinder recordings are perhaps a more apt example of old technology which yields recoverable data but cylinder recordings were never used for long and are comparitively few against disc recordings. Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the original premise that electonic images are not photography. They obviously are despite any argument about longevity. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com On 10/16/2004 1:51 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: >> Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic >> aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his >> argument. He asserts that because digital formats change >> (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable >> in the future. [...] >> However, assuming that the *physical media* remains >> intact, it is very, very unlikely that any [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > while digital data will always require a lot of specialized > equipment. [more good stuff snipped] Everything you say is so; my point was simply that it will undoubtedly be possible to read digital images, even from obsolete media and formats, in the future. You pointed out that it may be difficult to do so, which is true. But it will still be possile. SignatureEverybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky > On 10/16/2004 1:51 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: >> The fact is that recovery of archived material on >> photographic film requires little specialized equipment [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the future. You pointed out that it may be difficult to do so, which is > true. But it will still be possile. Sure but if it's going to cost hundreds of bucks per image to recover them, how many will be recovered? BTW I have some paper tapes from a 1970's wang machine, know someone who can read them for the same cost as looking at the photo's I took at the same time? :-) SignatureStacey > On 10/16/2004 1:51 PM Richard Knoppow spake thus: > > [more good stuff snipped] Everything else snipped as it deserves to be... > Everything you say is so; my point was simply that it will undoubtedly be > possible to read digital images, even from obsolete media and formats, in the > future. You pointed out that it may be difficult to do so, which is true. But > it will still be possile. I think your point must be to gain gratification by crossposting so as to take an ongoing multithread dicussion in one nsg group and limiting it's context in your favor in another nsg. Welcome to the killfile david... NASA, with multi-million dollar budgets, couldn't recover much of the data they had stored on tape from the early space probes (Ranger..). So a bunch of rocket scientists, with all the $$ and support engineers and software geeks in NASA, can't recover their own digital tapes 30 years on, right?! Doesn't say much for our odds for recovery 50 or 100 years from now? ;-) The first reason most digital images are going to be lost is that most such images are not recorded on permanent storage media in the first place. By most, I mean 63%, as found in a digital camera user survey by Fuji-UK (see BJP PROFESSIONAL NEWS - 21 May 2003 for details), where most users had images stored on their computer hard drives -with no backups! Second, most of the remaining images are not going to be properly managed, meaning they won't be recopied every year or two, or converted to new formats etc. Like most photographs of the past, those CDRs are going to end up in a shoebox in a hot attic, and chemical "bit-rot" will make them unreadable in a decade or less. Magnetic "bit-rot" kills off that form of storage media quickly too. These losses can be catastrophic in many image formats using compression, where most of the image is encoded as offsets from an initial value. Even worse are images with encrypted or protected or enbedded features. We already have "data archeologists" (seriously) who specialize in excavating data from older corporate databases and resources Third, for the few % of images that are recorded on "archival media", failure to strictly maintain temperature and especially non-exposure to UV will mean far shorter lives than claimed in the ads. And you may have noticed that a number of so-called "archival" CD products (e.g., Kodak..) have been withdrawn or recharacterized for longevity, yes? ;-) This is a really big deal for digital librarians and others in the data storage biz. Film remains the only proven archival image storage media today... Fourth, the number of proprietary formats continues to explode in number (e.g., raw data), with lots of "streaming" updates in software upgrades added to products. The number of incompatible file compression formats is also quite large. The number of operating system variables are large (cf. XP vs. MS-DOS etc. ;-). And lots of those software programs have bugs and "features" which may prove critical to recovering or reconstructing the original data decades from now. So, how many of us have recorded all this information with our CDs, so we could reconstruct the creation environment say fifty years from now? None, right? ;-) Fifth, your experience as a data conversion company worker is different from mine. I "inherited" a nifty heathkit version of a DEC minicomputer, complete with software and 8" diskettes etc. The original owner had spent years searching online and with our campus archivists and librarians for a service that could convert her original dissertation notes and resources off the 8" diskettes in some odd freeware word processor format to MS-WORD. Nobody could do it. Not even the heath user group folks could help her out That was less than 20 years old hardware and software too, rather less than 100 years, eh? ;-) What does Fuji-UK recommend? They suggest that if you have something you really want to be sure is available archivally decades from now, you should get it on FILM (!) :-0) Makes sense, since film is a direct access medium (no computer hardware or software required) with proven archival potentials (with proper fixing etc.). And the US government continues to mandate COM (microfilm) as their archival medium of choice etc. The sad part here is that the very vast majority of digital images being made by regular people will be lost, not in a century, but at the next hard drive failure or virus attack (63%..), most "archived" CDROM images will deteriorate from chemical "bit-rot" in the next decade or so etc. Just as parents are upset to discover that their VHS tapes of their kids can't be viewed at the kid's graduation from High School, so to are most of today's digital users likely to be disappointed that their digital images are lost over the same double decade time period. In the meantime, lots of us will be glad we were shooting on film in the first place ;-) my $.02 ;-) bobm Signature*********************************************************************** * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* > The sad part here is that the very vast majority of digital images being > made by regular people will be lost, not in a century, but at the next > hard drive failure or virus attack (63%..), most "archived" CDROM images > will deteriorate from chemical "bit-rot" in the next decade or so etc. I don't even work in the computer industry but have witnessed this first hand at least a dozen times. People store their digital images on the same partition as their windows install! They pop in the restore disk that came with their computer and are shocked all their childen's pictures are gone. And of course they never printed any of them so they are GONE. Of course with enough diligence this can be avoided but how many people are going to take on the active -fight- of keeping all their images safe? I'd bet less than 5% of digital camera users will. SignatureStacey <big snip> >In the meantime, lots of us will be glad we were shooting on film in the >first place ;-) Some good points, bob, but what in particular do they have to do with MF photography or the original topic of this thread? Agreed, lots of folks now shooting digicams will be in for a rude surprise somewhere down the line. They will either learn from that experience.. or not. By definition most of those who lose data will be casual users. In the meantime, I feel I'm pretty well covered - shooting mostly with film and printing digitally. On images captured digitally, I need to be super vigilant. Yes, I've already lost a few images. I'm not looking backwards -- just can't see any point in doing that. Yes, it's good to be reminded of the volatility of digital data. Even so, I'm sure the storage technologies will continue to improve rapidly. Four years ago a 100 MB Zip disk was the standard, at $10 a pop. In 2004 it's a DVD, with 47 times more storage at 1/10 the cost. Can you cite evidence that present CDs and DVDs are subject to magnetic "bit rot?" I believe you are mistaken on that point. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > Agreed, lots of folks now shooting digicams > will be in for a rude surprise somewhere down > the line. True, just as so many families had a rude surprise when they saw their color photographs from the '70s and earlier fading and discoloring beyond recognition ("and why oh why didn't we keep all those negatives somewhere so that we could find them today?"). > <big snip> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com > DEC minicomputer ... spent > years searching online and with our campus archivists and librarians for a > service that could convert her original dissertation notes and resources > off the 8" diskettes in some odd freeware word processor format to > MS-WORD. Nobody could do it. Not even the heath user group The Heath UG may not have been the place to look. IIRC the Heath was based on the PDP-11 single-chip CPU. Did she try the various PDP-11 groups? There will (should) be a great deal more expertise there than in the Heath group. http://www.hampage.hu/pdp-11/ It seems the '11 is still made and used in Ireland and Hungary. * * * However, the magnetic coating on those 8" disks may have turned to goo. Polyurethane - the stuff used for camera light seals - is the binder used in magnetic tape and floppy discs. And we all know long-lasting polyurethane is, right? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >> DEC minicomputer ... spent >> years searching online and with our campus archivists and librarians for [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > used in magnetic tape and floppy discs. And we all know long-lasting > polyurethane is, right? "Bob Monaghan" <rmonagha@engr.smu.edu> wrote >DEC minicomputer ... spent >years searching online and with our campus archivists and librarians for a >service that could convert her original dissertation notes and resources >off the 8" diskettes in some odd freeware word processor format to >MS-WORD. Nobody could do it. Not even the heath user group "Odd freeware" and PDP/11 don't go together. ;) But the real question is How much is the person willing to pay for a conversion, and will plain text do? The VAX 11/780 and a few others still had the option to boot from 8" discs, and there is a fellow in Wisconsin with a few DEC VAXen and PDP's under RSTS/E, RT-11 and RSX. So, how much? A couple grand okay? "jjs" <jj@jj.jj> wrote in message > "Odd freeware" and PDP/11 don't go together. Surprisingly enough, I think they do. For college kids in the late 60's early 70's this used to be their 'personal' computer (as in being in the computer center from 2am to 6am) - so you can imagine what got written for it. It soon became the hobby system in the 70's. I had several friends with 11's made from 'surplus' parts bought at hamfests (Prof: Hey! What happened to my computer? Where'd the front panel go?). > How much is the person willing to pay for a conversion, You would need to find an 11 user with a copy of said WP program and 8" drives. Such may not exist. The logical place for this rig, an HT-11 UG did come up empty according to the OP. There were way more PDP-11s than HT-11s, and if the disk drives and software were the same as used on the HT-11, then there may be success. My guess the cost is zilch. Or if you go to someone who makes a living at it, well who knows ... If the data can be moved to PC format it may be possible to pull the text out of the files with a binary editor. Now, what sort of 8" floppy: Single sided; Double sided; Hard sectored; Soft sectored; Number of sectors; Tracks per inch ...? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ : "jjs" <jj@jj.jj> wrote in message : > "Odd freeware" and PDP/11 don't go together. : Surprisingly enough, I think they do. For college kids in : the late 60's early 70's this used to be their 'personal' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : (Prof: Hey! What happened to my computer? Where'd the : front panel go?). : > How much is the person willing to pay for a conversion, : You would need to find an 11 user with a copy of said WP program : and 8" drives. Such may not exist. The logical place for this : rig, an HT-11 UG did come up empty according to the OP. There : were way more PDP-11s than HT-11s, and if the disk drives and : software were the same as used on the HT-11, then there may be : success. : My guess the cost is zilch. Or if you go to someone who makes : a living at it, well who knows ... : If the data can be moved to PC format it may be possible to : pull the text out of the files with a binary editor. : Now, what sort of 8" floppy: Single sided; Double sided; : Hard sectored; Soft sectored; Number of sectors; Tracks per : inch ...? I don't even want to think about having to deal with 8" floppies!! I had some fun about 5 years ago when I retired an old Sun server because it wasn't capable of running a y2k compliant OS. I shut it down and scrapped the server but hung onto the SMD drives. Two monthes later I got a call from a user that demanded that I reconnect the SMD drive to another server so she could recover data from it. As those of us in the IT field know and have been upfront about is media obsolecense<SP?> is an issue. Another problem is what to do with data that you can read from the media but don't have the software to deal with the data. This is of course a bigger issue then just what to do with digital images. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > "jjs" <jj@jj.jj> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > computer (as in being in the computer center from 2am to 6am) > - so you can imagine what got written for it. I was suggesting that it was unlikely that it was freeware if it was used by a faculty member for her dissertation. Could be, but more likely it was DEC's first word processor, the DECMate (PDP/8, a 12-bit OS). I know that a lot of student-ware was written for the PDP/11, and for the time period you mention, it was likely written in DEC BASIC. Omsi Pascal didn't come out until about '77 and it was still buggy. Their only other alternative was lower-level languages, and not many made good lower-level programs. Can you tell I was there? >> How much is the person willing to pay for a conversion, > > You would need to find an 11 user with a copy of said WP program > and 8" drives. Such may not exist. I said there's a DEC VAX 11/780 (maybe 11/785) out there. With the exchange program (which read/writes PDP/11 formats) it can be done. > My guess the cost is zilch. Or if you go to someone who makes > a living at it, well who knows ... The person I'm speaking of won't do squat for squat because it takes more electricity to run those machines that it's worth and the demand for programmers for obsolete hardware is about gone. > If the data can be moved to PC format it may be possible to > pull the text out of the files with a binary editor. No kidding. > Now, what sort of 8" floppy: Single sided; Double sided; > Hard sectored; Soft sectored; Number of sectors; Tracks per > inch ...? Not an issue. Open the media as a non-file structured device and go for it. We had _lots_ of tools to discover formats. "jjs" <jj@jj.jj> wrote in message > > Now, what sort of 8" floppy: Single sided; Double sided; > > Hard sectored; Soft sectored; Number of sectors; Tracks per > > inch ...? > > Not an issue. Open the media as a non-file structured device and go for it. > We had _lots_ of tools to discover formats. You can't open a hard sectored disk in a soft sector drive, and visa versa - remember the disks with the ring of index holes? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > recordings. > Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the > original premise that electonic images are not photography. > They obviously are despite any argument about longevity. They obviously are not, Richard, since 1. the process are different and produce different results. 2. Digital silicon sensors do not and cannot produce a photograph. What they do produce is a voltage based on the photoelectric effect. This is then regenerated into digital signals that are then used to output reproductions of those signals. At no time during this process is there an optical image nor any photograph. A photograph is an image produce by the direct action of light. Digital does not do this nor can it. The physics don't allow it. 3. The ISO standard states definitively digital still cameras produce a signal that _represents_ still pictures, not actual pictures. As I've pointed out in my posts in rec.photo.darkroom (now being cross posted and the discussion deliberately taken out of context...), people need to look at the processes to determine what digital is vs. what photography is. Looking at the end result is misleading, since in our society the words photo and photographic have come to idiomatically mean any image we see. But as we all well know calendars, though we call them photos/photographs, are not. They are offset reproductions. Simialrly paintings are pictures, but they are not photographs. Digital produces pictures and reproductions, but there is no original photograph created by digital imaging. >> recordings. >> Now, having said all this basically I disagree with [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > but there is no original photograph created by digital > imaging. What is the definition of Photography? I think that fixing it as a method of producing pictures via a particular chemical process is not sufficiently broad. Is television photographic, it is completely electronic (I am excepting the use of motion pictures are original material, they are transmitted by electronic means). I think this argument confuses the method with the result. Digital photographs are "pictures" as much as chemical ones are once they get to the finished form. If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that _is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the _result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a picture. Also, "electronic" is not interchangibe with "digital". ALL of the electronic signals used for digital imaging purposes represent analogue functions. Even those which start out in life in the digital domain, such as the output of graphics generators, are meant to be translatable to analogue form in order to be meaningful to the human sensorium. Digital referes to a method of encoding analogue information in order to store or transmit it. In some ways digitally incoded information is superior to the original analogue information for transmission or storage (and in some ways is not). This has nothing to do with the process a user goes through. A person using an electronic camera to produce images which are to be reproduced on a computer screen or printed on a computer printer, can be a photgrapher just as much as someone using chemical methods. It is the production of the image that defines the process not the means. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > >> recordings. > >> Now, having said all this basically I disagree with [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > "pictures" as much as chemical ones are once they get to the > finished form. Pictures yes. Photographs no. Digital is a different medium, and if a different medium it cannot be the same medium, i.e., photographic. Painting is likewise an imaging medium and produces pictures. But it is not phototgraphic. The _process_ is what defines it, not the result. And if the result also defines it, then digital is still not photographic, since the results are very different. Pictures are not photographs, a silver images created by the direct action of light is a photograph. Digital simply doesn't do this. It creates data, which is then use to image a "picture" by any various methods of output. This is where most people are confused IMHO. > If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not > digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If > you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that > _is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the > _result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a > picture. The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of that data. This is what digital does. It is not what photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's. This is why we call digital "digital imaging," rather than the term _phos graphos_ which was intentionally applied to a light actuated chemical process by the eminent scientists of the day > Also, "electronic" is not interchangibe with "digital". > ALL of the electronic signals used for digital imaging > purposes represent analogue functions. But they don't represent photographic functions, since no image actually exists. The ISO states digital images are representational images until output. And they are correct. >Even those which > start out in life in the digital domain, such as the output [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > analogue information for transmission or storage (and in > some ways is not). Well I'm not sure what original analogue info you refer to. As regards digital cameras, which image by the use of photodetectors, I disagree. All digital cameras are limited by Nyquist, and cannot be superior in any way to the original analogue (scene) information. Signal frequencies must be reduced due to nyquist and there is no way around this. This is why digital images for pictorial purposes can never equal the resolution abilities of silver halides, which for all practical purposes mirror the original analogue information. > This has nothing to do with the process a > user goes through. A person using an electronic camera to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is the production of the image that defines the process > not the means. BUt there is no image in the digital process. When the data is output, there is an image, but it is not a photographically produced image. I made my original post to rec.photo.darkroom. This deliberately crossposted discussion is therefore out of context and is why I'm viewing David Nebenzahl as trolling. I'd refer you to that post but honestly I think the discussion there has about run it's course! On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: >> If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not >> digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output > that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's. Oh, come on, give it up; admit that all you're doing is engaging in semantic hair-splitting. OK, you assert that a CCD doesn't produce a picture, but only a signal--voltage levels corresponding to illumination values at each pixel. Fine. Then I say that photographic film doesn't produce a picture either, just altered electrical charges in silver halide atoms. You can't see a picture on a CCD, true. Neither can you see a picture on an exposed piece of film (or paper). Just as the CCD signal requires processing in order to render it into a photograph, the film requires processing. You have no case. Next! SignatureEverybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky > On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Oh, come on, give it up; admit that all you're doing is engaging in semantic > hair-splitting. Yeah, and all you're doing is trolling. Maybe you and scarpitti are related... > > On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Maybe you and scarpitti are related... Your argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or dead. And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major". ;-) SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > > > On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major". > ;-) And you ignore that what you say is meaningless if you can't offer a valid argument... ..So, take your thumbs out of your armpits and make a case or disprove mine -- if you can. BTW, I hang with LOTS of degreed people. Some are stupider than a troll. A degree means nothing more than the effort required to obtain it, and some the most brilliant human beings in history had no "degrees." It doesn't mean intelligence or clarity of understanding. So you know where you can put your degree argument. >> > > On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: >> > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > So you know where you can put your degree argument. All I'm saying is, to people who are out there seriously making images with cameras such as myself, you can call it anything you'd like, we've got a "mission" to accomplish. And you're the one who brought up your degree--I was just giving you a hard time about it. As for your argument that David N. is a troll because he responded to your post here in a new thread, I must disagree. A troll makes comments/questions with the intent of disrupting a newsgroup. This is an attempt at a serious discussion--albeit, serious about something trivial. The fact that he moved it here tells me he wants to see the people frequenting this group respond. As a citizen of usenet, he's free to do that, nor is it in violation of any usenet charter that I'm aware of, provided the thread is ontopic for the group(s) in question. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > >> > > On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > "mission" to accomplish. And you're the one who brought up your degree--I > was just giving you a hard time about it. I did not mention anything about degrees. yours, mine, or anyone else's. > As for your argument that David N. is a troll because he responded to your > post here in a new thread, I must disagree. A troll makes It was crossposted minus the original thread/posts. Deliberately. As in deliberately out of context. That's Trolling with a capital T. Your grasp of what it means to troll seems as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is not. A photograph is not merely anything you hang on the wall (a very shallow and superficial defintion.) If that were true, my Sierra Club calendar of images would also be equal to a collection of photographs. They're not. They're offset reproductions. The _process_ determines what a photograph is and isn't, not the resulting "picture." Digital is not a photographic process. It's an electronic data imaging process that in scienitific reality produces no optical image. Ever. Only the photochemical process actually writes an image with light. Digital does not write with light, it transmits a photoelectric signal and no image is produced. Period. Digital images are rather reproduced output (like the calendar) from digital signals, not from light. I just don't know why this is seems such an abstract a concept to people. One produces an image; the other creates a file. Not really complicated or abstract. As regards the terminology (i.e., use of the terms photograph/ photographic) we are talking about a scientific application of a scientific term for a scientific process, which photographgy is -- not the evolving common English vernacular. As an professed English MA, you should well know the difference. Examine the process, not the idiomatic usage. > comments/questions with the intent of disrupting a newsgroup. This is an > attempt at a serious discussion--albeit, serious about something trivial. > The fact that he moved it here tells me he wants to see the people > frequenting this group respond. As a citizen of usenet, he's free to do > that, nor is it in violation of any usenet charter that I'm aware of, > provided the thread is ontopic for the group(s) in question. Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls... > > >> > > On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls... It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own. At any rate, I made no claims one way or the other as to what constitutes a photograph, ergo your claim that my "grasp of what it means to troll seems as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is not" is little more than an ad hominem insult. You're good at those, too bad your ability to put your emotions aside and _really_ look at what a person is saying is less developed. As for my comment on degrees, you said, and I quote, " English was my major (along with photography) in college" (as though that proves something concerning your ability to discern semantic nuance--it does not, and is a very poor argument on your part). So, yeah, I guess you're right, you could have an English major without a degree. But then that's playing at semantics again--story of your life, apparently. Finally, you're the only one I see disrupting the group with your angry arguments, so I guess that makes you the troll, yes? Yes. I won't waste my time with your tantrums any longer. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > > > >> > > On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > > > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > Finally, you're the only one I see disrupting the group with your angry > arguments, so I guess that makes you the troll, yes? Yes. For an English MA you don't read a thread very well, do you? _I_ didn't post this thread. But the thread has _my_ name in the subject. Now, wonder why that is? ANSWER: a troll took it from another nsg and posted it here. IT'S CALLED FLAMING. GET IT??? Know what trolling and flaming are? If not you need to go back to USENET school. 101. BTW, you said, and I quote: "Your [my] argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or dead. And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major"." Well, now, I was merely stating I had a background in English, i.e., I understand both semantics and photography. Gee, shoot me. But like the troll you merely make unfounded assertions and ad hominems (appeals to personal considerations rather than sound argument.) In others words _you_ began this exchange, and attack. I have at least made posts based on logical argumentation for the most part. Of course most of those posts relating to this misappropriated thead are in _another_ nsg (get it?), where the referenced subject actually is. Your argument is (1) a fallacy, since you cannot possibly speak for "any photographer living or dead." (2) An appeal to your own superiority (also a fallacy) which was in fact an intended as an insult. (3) I am a photographer (sorry, but that means a schooled photographer who knows more than just what _your_ point and shoot digital camera manual tells you...) and I know many other photographers (probably more than you do) and none consider this issue "meaningless." > I won't waste my time with your tantrums any longer. Uh oh. What will I do now? > > Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls... > > It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own. HE-HE ,....Its rather Trollish behavior of him, wouldn't you say there Sal ;-) > "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message > Your argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or > dead. > And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major". Ah, but do you have a degree in philosophy? How am I doing? English is my second language. >> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ah, but do you have a degree in philosophy? How am I doing? English is my > second language. I have an undergrad dual major in Philosophy and English. Your English is very good; in fact, your English is far better than most of my (ex)freshman students'. (I no longer teach.) SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > very good; in fact, your English is far better than most of my > (ex)freshman students'. (I no longer teach.) Sh*t--I forgot to change the name setting--I'm posting from my wife's computer while on lunch! SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > Sh*t--I forgot to change the name setting--I'm posting from my wife's > computer while on lunch! Ok "Sally" ;-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 It seems to me that this thread has become muddied. I hope you don't mind if I try to clarify some points. Let us begin with one clear statement. It seems that Tom. Phillips is trying to make a distinction between 1) the making of source images made by 2) conventional film and 3) images made by light-sensitive digital sensors. Is that correct? 1-3: 1) making of source image - the capturing of the first version of an image, and NOT the copying or creation of an image from another image, regardless of its kind. In other words, even making a copy of a conventional film photograph of an original film photograph is not "photography" per se. What we are trying to distinguish here is the nature of the creation: light falling upon a three-dimentional surface and not a derrivation from such. 2) conventional film - the silver-based emulsion that we know to be derrived from that used since classic glass plates, flexible films today, or painted onto any surface and NOT a film yet to be invented or not yet in popular use 3) light-sensitive digital sensors of any kind IS THIS CORRECT SO FAR? We can explore the nuances that distinguish Tom's definition/view after we settle the above. > It seems that Tom. Phillips is trying to make a distinction between 1) the > making of source images made by 2) conventional film and 3) images made by > light-sensitive digital sensors. Is that correct? > 1) making of source image I would put it as: "The capture of an image of the original subject by the action of light." I would allow a print as the 'photograph of a photograph' as it fits the definition and minimizes endless nit picking. > 2) conventional film - the silver-based emulsion that we know to be derrived > from that used since classic glass plates, flexible films today, or painted > onto any surface and NOT a film yet to be invented or not yet in popular use My interpretation: "A film (bad word, could be a cyanotype, etc.) image is a physical medium that forms a 'permanent' image due to the direct action of light from the subject." > 3) light-sensitive digital sensors of any kind I would differentiate digital from film (for lack of better words): "A digital image is pure abstract data representing the action of light on the subject." There is nothing to say that a digital image has to exist on a physical medium: it can represented by a cloud of electronic charge, a current, or as the memory of a string of numbers, among many others. And there is nothing requiring the image to be quantized - it can be an analog value, though at the limit everything is quantized. The action of the subject's light on the viewable image is not direct. We need new terms: "Physical imaging" (film) Vs "Ephemeral imaging" (digital)? - I know, awful choices - But they are both 'photography' in my book. Outside of fetishists, the person hanging the image on the wall couldn't give a rat's a.s about which it is. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >> It seems that Tom. Phillips is trying to make a distinction between 1) >> the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "The capture of an image of the original subject by the action > of light." We aren't really looking for a reinterpretation, Nicholas. All you need to say is that you disagree in entirety with the assertions above. If Tom Phillips disagrees with the above, then the thread is done. Get it? > But they are both 'photography' in my book. Outside of fetishists, > the person hanging the image on the wall couldn't give a rat's a.s about > which it is. It's not about fetishists, but about a philosophical stand. > We need new terms: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the person hanging the image on the wall couldn't give a rat's a.s about > which it is. With this I disagree. Anyone buying images as art most definitely gives a rat's a.s. This is why no gallery would sell an inkjet as a "photograph," but as a digital image. Similarly, photographs are labeled according to what they are (i.e., the _process_): silver gelatin, cyanotype, chromogemic, etc. These are not semantical differences, as David the troller insists. They are legitimate distinctions of the various processes employed. Digital imaging is digital imaging. The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently) in order to market digital as "digital film." Of course it is not film in any sense or function nor does it produce a photograph. > [...] > The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently) > in order to market digital as "digital film." Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy! > > [...] > > The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently) > > in order to market digital as "digital film." > > Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy! I don't know why these things are so difficult for people to understand. P.T. Barnum must have been reincarnated as a semiconductor CEO... > It seems to me that this thread has become muddied. The thread is "muddied" because it was deliberately crossposted out of context. Otherwise known as trolling... > I hope you don't mind if > I try to clarify some points. Let us begin with one clear statement. > > It seems that Tom. Phillips is trying to make a distinction between 1) the > making of source images made by 2) conventional film and 3) images made by > light-sensitive digital sensors. Is that correct? There is a distinction. Which any gallery selling such images also makes... > 1-3: > > 1) making of source image - the capturing of the first version of an image, > and NOT the copying or creation of an image from another image, regardless > of its kind. In other words, even making a copy of a conventional film > photograph of an original film photograph is not "photography" per se. If a scanned copy, it is digital imaging. If a photochemical copy, it is a copy negative. Even photochemical terms makes specific distinction depending on the processes employed and always have. > What > we are trying to distinguish here is the nature of the creation: light [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > We can explore the nuances that distinguish Tom's definition/view after we > settle the above. >> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ah, but do you have a degree in philosophy? Also, as far as philosophical debates go, this one is still trivial. Hardly epistemology, now, is it? SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> Ah, but do you have a degree in philosophy? > > Also, as far as philosophical debates go, this one is still trivial. > Hardly epistemology, now, is it? What I'm trying to do is pin down the original author's internal view, his ground of what he considers photography, for example is it strictly light falling upon a traditional recording medium and intended to make a "picture" (rather than the phenonema of sunburn or something like that)? Or is it anything other than digital? I suspect the author is fostering a romantic notion of photography vs. this new digital stuff - the superiority of "that which came first" kind of thing, without speaking to what makes it superior. >>> Ah, but do you have a degree in philosophy? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > this new digital stuff - the superiority of "that which came first" kind > of thing, without speaking to what makes it superior. Yes, agreed. You say romantic, where I'd say sentimental. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > >> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Also, as far as philosophical debates go, this one is still trivial. Hardly > epistemology, now, is it? Facts are facts. Digital does not produce a photograph. It is impossible for silicon to record a permanent image. epistemology or no... >Facts are facts. Digital does not produce a photograph. It is >impossible for silicon to record a permanent image. By and large, we no longer communicate via chiseling symbols into stone. In our age, the permanance of a photo will be determined by its universal appeal -- this will determine whether adequate efforts will be made to preserve the image over the ages. Ie. permanence is an attribute of the "post processing" and not necessarily an attribute of the message or image at the instant of its creation. Permanence is of course relative. Unprocessed film images can remain latent for years, even decades -- but I'd still not refer to them as permanent. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > > "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ah, but do you have a degree in philosophy? How am I doing? English is my > second language. I have a degree in philosophy and have published in Semiotica, and I say the MEDIUM makes no difference whatsoever in calling something 'photography'. The FUNCTIONAL meaning is what's important, and since the image derives mechanically from captured focused light rays, it's photography. Thus sayeth Scarpitti. > > > "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I have a degree in philosophy . . . . . . . . . I never knew that a degree in philosphy was a requirement for working at a camera store . . . . . . . . learn something nearly every day . . . I guess . . . . . . . snip.. > > If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not > > digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a light actuated chemical process by the eminent scientists > of the day I should add was applied intentionally to describe the photochemical process, i.e., the direct action of light in a chemically actuated process. The idiomatic use of the words "photo" and "photography" in our society do not negate this intentional, original application. Television cameramen are called "photographers" rather than videographers. Movie makers are called photographers rather than the more proper cinematographers. The term photography and photographer is so diluted as to have become meaninless in our society. On 10/18/2004 9:04 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > The idiomatic use of the words "photo" and "photography" > in our society do not negate this intentional, original [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > photography and photographer is so diluted as to have > become meaninless in our society. So are you one of those people who insist on calling tomatoes and peppers "fruit"? Because technically they are. (The seeds of a plant and that which contains them.) It's just that 99.95% of people misuse the term and insist on calling them vegetables. This is just as relevant as your insistence on the narrowest usage of "photography". You may even be technically correct--who knows? (Or cares?) If you really want to pursue this, I'd suggest going on over to alt.usage.english and seeing what folks there have to say about it. Might be interesting. SignatureEverybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. - Noam Chomsky > On 10/18/2004 9:04 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > alt.usage.english and seeing what folks there have to say about it. Might be > interesting. No need. English was my major (along with photography) in college. And tomatoes are a fruit and most people know that. I'd suggest we see what people think about the semantical differences between a known troll and someone who just behaves like a troll... > No need. English was my major (along with photography) in college. Ah kuld tell cause yer talking is so gud. > And tomatoes are a fruit and most people know that. And poisonous! > I'd suggest we see what people think about the semantical differences > between a known troll and someone who just behaves like a troll... How much is it to get over this bridge, anyway? > > No need. English was my major (along with photography) in college. > > Ah kuld tell cause yer talking is so gud. If you only knew I typed with two fingers... > > And tomatoes are a fruit and most people know that. > > And poisonous! Not if they are organic and vine ripened :-) >> recordings. >> Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 1. the process are different and produce different results. Photography to me is capturing a moment in time. You can define it in a narrow way so that only your way of doing it is photography. IMHO if what you display never actually existed in front of the camera, it's photographic (or digital) art, not photography. But that's my narrow deifinition. I have some "digital art" hanging in the walls of my home, but I know what it is... SignatureStacey The question is, David, why you are behaving like a troll and cross posting this out of context when the relevant and original thread for this subject was posted (by me) only in rec.photo.darkroom. Anyone who wants to read my reply should read it there, since I'm not about to carry on the same discussion over multiple nsgs. Guess some people simply have too much time on their hands... > Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, > there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Noam Chomsky > Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his > argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become > unreadable in the future. It is pertinent to assert that it is _unlikely_ that the average person could afford to have the media rescued. Heck, if you have enough money today, you can reconstruct a crushed RP03 disc from 1977. > I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media > conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company > alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats > ([...]) Affordability is the issue. I can read reel-to-reel computer tapes, too because I have a place to store the monster. I'd be happy to rescue tapes - at a monsterous expense to the buyer. Seen Wired lately? Nice article on archiving entitled "Point and Shoot and Kiss it Goodbye." Separate issue, but still interesting. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.